There is no scientific proof that God exists

There is no scientific proof that God exists.
>but science is flawed/wrong/etc there are other kinds of proof
Then it's not really proof for anyone unconvinced by faith now is it?
You would have to take non scientific proof on faith.

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=unfalsifiable definition
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

pls go away

What about a logical proof of God? Would that suffice for your high standards?

Science is about logical deduction. There is no logical proof of God.
Aquinas at most "proves" that something started the whole ball rolling.
There is zero evidence that this thing is/was sentient, let alone that it is the christian god.

But that is a "God," and we can use the world that was created because of His actions to glean insight into His personality. For example, we can use our morality to determine what He wants us to do, because humanity has generally the same morals across the entire race.

>that was created because of His actions
Literally zero evidence of intelligent design. Aquinas does not attempt to prove a sentient being.

But he does, because a Creator is shown to have created a set of physical laws which enable the existence of life. I would argue that that more likely proves sentience than a lucky spin on the wheel of fortune.

>But he does
>I would argue that that more than likely
That's not proof then.

It is evidence which supports my claim, which I would definitely call proof.

Remember that environmental adaptions can reasonably be called proof for both evolution and creationism, and the dual nature of this does not make it any less legitimate evidence for either side.

>Science is about logical deduction.
you are retarded

No. You have failed to provide evidence that God is sentient.
Humans having a moral compass is not proof that God is sentient.

possible answer that can't be disproven=/=proof

Am I?

But I was talking about the coherent and downright pleasant arrangements of the laws of physics proving some portion of intelligent design, not the shared morality of humanity.

>But I was talking about the coherent and downright pleasant arrangements of the laws of physics proving some portion of intelligent design

>women are hot life is poetic sometimes=god exists
wtf I love faith now

Again.
possible answer that can't be disproven=/=proof

But it is not possible, it is definite. We know that something created the laws of the universe, and we know that those laws are conducive to life. Therefore, we can deduce that they were created with the purpose of allowing life. And to have a purpose, one must be thinking.

>We know that something created the laws of the universe
now you're going in circles
see
A first cause does not mean sentience.

Tell me, do you dispute that there is a reason for the origins of the laws of the universe? Because that is what you are doing, sir.

That's not what i'm doing though.
first cause=/=sentient first cause

Creations of first cause that demonstrate intelligence means that the first cause is sentient.

No?
This is an unfalsifiable claim.

How so?

lmgtfy.com/?q=unfalsifiable definition

No, how is it an unfalsifiable claim?

Becuase it fits the definition of an unfalsifiable claim. I gave you a link to the water, but I can't make you drink.

You're free to contest my assertion.

I understand if you are questioning the individual causes which can be said to demonstrate intelligence, but I do hope you are questioning the logical chain of
>A first cause proves intelligent
>First causer is intelligent

>>A first cause proves intelligent
no

Pardon me, should have put an 'if' in there.

F*** (fuck) off.

There is no empirical proof that empiricism can determine objective truths.

Proof?

Lol

Well, there's obviously proof that the unmoved movers exist.

But sure, I've no objection if you want to shit on Abrahamism.

Not an argument, phoneposter.

Wait you were serious? I thought you were being ironic. There are plenty of philosophical works and courses that you can find on your own that provide a much deeper explanation for the inability of logical processes or empirical research to prove themselves or an objective reality. Forum posts are kind of limited, but I think that's something you should look into.